Alex, Thanks. Indeed, as I said, I'm not suggesting any change to the draft.
Regards Brian Carpenter On 2010-02-16 21:40, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote: > FYI, my responses to that Gen-ART review from December are attached. > > Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:49 AM >> To: [email protected]; General >> Area Review Team >> Subject: Gen-ART telechat review of draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-04.txt >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Subject: >> RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-04.txt >> From: >> "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email protected]> >> Date: >> Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:56:56 +0100 >> To: >> "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, "General Area Review >> Team" <[email protected]> >> >> To: >> "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, "General Area Review >> Team" <[email protected]> >> CC: >> <[email protected]>, "Cullen Jennings" <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Brian, >> >> Thanks for the review - comments inline: >> >>> Document: draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-04.txt >>> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter >>> Review Date: 2009-12-09 >>> IETF LC End Date: 2009-12-18 >>> IESG Telechat date: >>> >>> Summary: Ready >>> -------- >>> >>> >>> Comment: >>> -------- >>> >>> I'm sure this has been discussed and thought about, but it does strike >> me that >>> having a specific 20th century coordinate system as the default may >> seem a bit >>> odd in the future, if something like geo:13.4125,103.8667;crs=wgs2106 >>> becomes the norm. However, I have no changes to suggest. I might be >> inclined >>> to recommend including ;crs=wgs84 as best practice whenever such a URI >> is >>> included in a document or a database. >> >> We have discussed that issue several times on the list, as well as in >> person. Carl Reed voiced his opinion here: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07784.html >> >> What he also said in a different message (i couldn't find it, though) >> was that "84" doesn't mean WGS-84 is an "old school, soon to be >> obsoleted CRS" - if i understood it correctly, it was refined last in >> 2006 (for continental drift affecting the gravity model, if i got it >> right), and all differences will be in the centimeter range for the >> (geodetically) foreseeable future. >> >> The reference systems for GLONASS and GALILEO (russian and european >> satellite navigation systems) will also differ only in the millimeter >> range from WGS-84. >> >> I sort of got the impression "changing the default CRS to something else >> than WGS-84 is about as likely as changing the DNS to a new root..." >> (however, it's of course a completely different issue). >> >> We also decided it would be better to put the burden on reprojection on >> the author of a geo URI instance, rather than the consumer, because >> consumers should have less effort than authors (and very likely, there >> would be much more consumers than authors..) - choosing a reasonable >> default CRS helps tremendously. >> >> Alex >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Subject: >> RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-geopriv-geo-uri-04.txt >> From: >> "Alexander Mayrhofer" <[email protected]> >> Date: >> Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:07:50 +0100 >> To: >> "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, "General Area Review >> Team" <[email protected]> >> >> To: >> "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]>, >> <[email protected]>, "General Area Review >> Team" <[email protected]> >> CC: >> <[email protected]>, "Cullen Jennings" <[email protected]> >> >> >> I found the message regarding WGS-84 being updated: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg07302.html >> >> I understand that if you'd want sub-inch precision, most reference >> systems would require you to also add the time of the actual measurement >> to the measurement itself. >> >> I do, however, also note that this is also only relevant for >> "professional" geology and geodesy, and likely not really relevant for >> the use cases that we intend to cover. >> >> If an application requires to use the full range of options available, >> there would be always PIDF-LO. >> >> Alex >> >> _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
